Comments on: Senate Finance Committee Public Option Vote and Campaign Contribution Ratios

By: Janet Storms

Janet Storms — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:45:58 +0000

BUSTED! Government Healthcare Advocate Admits Public Option is Trojan Horse!
http://02e56fa.netsolhost.com/blog1/index.php/2009/09/21/first-post-of-the-new-era-pickle-1-advoc

By: Don P

Don P — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:40:03 +0000

Thanks, Paul, for making an excellent point.

It’s interesting to see how people come to the defense of the insurance industry and the senators who represent them (as opposed to representing their constituency). One or two Senators who happen to vote in the interests of their biggest contributor might be a matter of voting their conscience regardless of how much money they receive from them. But when such a voting pattern is consistent across the board, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to attribute that to coincidence.

I don’t doubt your statistics, but wonder where, and how, you found them (I’d love to know how to do that kind of research). Thanks for an excellent post!

By: Wilson N Flemister Jr

Wilson N Flemister Jr — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:05:51 +0000

Say America itz time to connect the dots between Wall Street and the Insurance & Drug Companies and how Health Care Reform impacts their profits.After all they are the driving force behind the negative propaganda regarding Health Care Reform.

By: S. Robinson

S. Robinson — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:55:47 +0000

I hope everyone will wake up and realize the truth behind their vote and why our insurance cover is so high.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:09:20 +0000

When the full Senate votes, it’s great because you can compare two Senators with the same electorate. That enables you to see that, e.g., on CAFTA, while Midwestern Republicans were against it, they were still more likely to be for it than Midwestern Democrats, and a similar thing (Republicans more likely to be for it) in states that largely favored CAFTA.

By: Paul Blumenthal

Paul Blumenthal — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:10:15 +0000

I don’t disagree with any of your points. This post was mainly an idea I had and thought I’d put up the numbers that resulted. There are countless reasons for a lawmaker to support a bill or oppose a provision. This was simply a thought experiment and I don’t think I drew any real conclusions here. Just putting the numbers out. Thanks for your input.

By: Clif

Clif — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:08:26 +0000

As John indicated above the conclusions you draw are a bit hasty. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

If a senator gets elected on a strong business/free enterprise platform, it would follow that all kinds of industries would flock to his banner. That would not necessarily prove that his vote was purchased.

By: Paul Blumenthal

Paul Blumenthal — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:28:53 +0000

Thanks.

By: bud

bud — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:18:49 +0000

you misspelled committee

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:17:39 +0000

That’s because Idaho, Mike Crapo’s state, has one of the lowest rates of unionization.